Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add is_executable to Dwfl_Module.

[Mark Wielaard <mjw@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1141 bytes --]

On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 09:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:55:34 +0200, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > >    int segment;			/* Index of first segment table entry.  */
> > >    bool gc;			/* Mark/sweep flag.  */
> > > +  bool is_executable : 1;	/* Use Dwfl::executable_for_core?  */
> > 
> > If you're going to use a bitfield, then make every other bool in that
> > struct a bitfield too.  But it's not usually worthwhile.  It's
> > premature microoptimization that privileges memory over CPU, which
> > might not even be the right tradeoff any more.
> 
> I really do not mind, up to the maintainer how it all should be.

I don't think it is very helpful or productive to refuse to have a
technical opinion on a fair question about a code change you are
proposing. But if you need a "ruling" to move forward then I am with
Roland that the usage of booleans in a structure should be consistent.
Don't introduce a one-off bool bitfield unless you group the other bools
in the struct together and make them all bitfields. If you are not doing
that, then just make it a regular bool field.

Thanks,

Mark